reading sla

Towards a full model of second language learning by Garner, Tremblay and Masgoret

• The article has investigated several individual differences in one study, emphasising the interaction of factors like anxiety, aptitude, motivation, field dependence, language learning strategies and self-confidence. The ‘causal model’ proposed by the authors in the result section showing the connections between these affective variables and achievement resembles a DST model. Not one single factor stands out, they are all interconnected, and it is impossible to establish or separate causal relations among them.

• A number of studies have demonstrated a relationship between field dependence/ independence and achievement in the L2, with high levels of achievement being associated with field independence. Field-dependent individuals are characterized as sensitive and interested in others, while field-independent individuals are described as able to distinguish between figure and ground, and tending to be self-sufficient and analytical

• Krashen (1981) argues that because field independent individuals have an analytic orientation, they are potentially better language learners. Naiman et al. (1978) proposed that field-independent individuals would be successful language learners because they would distinguish between important elements to be learned and other less salient background factors. Hansen and Stansfield (1981) found, however, that most of the relationship between field independence and L2 achievement disappeared when the effects of scholastic ability were partialled out

• L2 achievement depends on a variety of factors and that the research has given insight into general tendencies. However, we can also conclude that these factors are interrelated, so it is impossible, but also unnecessary, to predict exactly either how each factor contributes to the language learning process in general or how any one particular learner will behave under any given circumstances.

C6

• Once the phonological boundaries have been established, it will be difficult to distinguish sounds that are phonetically very similar to L1 sounds but not the same. This is what Flege (1993) labels ‘equivalence classification’

• L2 learners will not create a new phonetic category for sounds that are similar to L1 phonemes. When L1 does not have a the same phonemes, a new category is created

A7

• language can be acquired through input without a dedicated language learning device; the ‘spreading activation model’, which is also based on relative frequency of input and considers L1 and L2 as part of the same system; and views from neuro-linguistics

• Paradis (2004) in Unit A5, who said that explicit knowledge is qualitatively different from implicit knowledge, but what may happen is that an explicit system may gradually be replaced by an implicit system.

• ‘selective attention’ (Daneman and Carpenter, 1980). It is difficult to pay attention to more than only one level or one strand of events at a time (for example, to read sentences and at the same time remember the last words of each sentence read

• L2 can be acquired in a natural setting, but because a learner in a naturalistic setting will most probably attend more to meaning and real communication rather than form

• it may not be difficult for the learner to acquire a high degree of fluency, but a high degree of accuracy in the L2 may be possible only if the learner also focuses her attention on forms

• we will never be able to filter out the exact effect of explicit instruction, but we do know it has some effect.

• explicit grammar instruction will not likely result in immediate mastery of specific grammatical items, but suggest nevertheless that explicit instruction does have value, namely, in facilitating intake’

• teaching approaches and its development

• grammar was taught in detail, providing students with bilingual word lists to memorise

• Army Method: It relied very heavily on intense exposure to the language -they were able to learn the language in relatively short time (small, motivated groups, many ours of learning)

• For bigger groups, audio-lingual method was developed (drilling the L2 patterns as in the following example. No free use of language was allowed because it was believed that it would cause errors)